I'm tired of hearing Yoko blamed. As with many things in life, she might have been a lightning rod for pre-existing issues within the group.

Anyway, we're better off that they broke up, since they all went on to do some of their greatest music, and most interesting stylistic changes, post-Beatles. Abbey Road's a great album, but does sort of indicate they might have already hit their artistic peak as a group.

All Yoko did was sit there. John COULD have just given cursory attention to her "suggestions" though.

As for what they might have accomplished if NOT breaking up, we'll never really know, and it's foolish to assume anything. I mean, the Stones didn't get TOO stagnant after a while, but DID to some degree. Whitefang

_________________________
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!

I wished John would have kept Yoko away from the boys. Added friction was not needed in the fab 4. They were on the verge of breaking up but it might have been possible to have a reunion some day. John loved Yoko and that's all that mattered. They could have done anything they wanted in the studio without trying to change what the Beatles were up to IMHO. Not blaming anyone, it's History and you can't change the past.

Nah the End of The Beatles started long before that & wasn't final til long after their split became apparent to their fans.The friction between Lennon & McCartney went all the way back before they were famous.That they managed to work around it was the real miracle of their success.Ultimately, however, they were just 2 v.diff cats & couldn't maintain their accord.

I did not click on the link, I absolutely like almost everything the Beatles did musically, but I am not much of a Yoko fan. I watched everything on the Beatles back in the day, so I am sure I already saw whatever it is that is in the video.

Yoko Ono was not the one who caused the Beatles to break up, it was Paul. Right around 1969 or 1970, George Harrison made a public gripe about having to play 57 (it could have been 58, but I think it was 57) Paul songs before they could play one of his. When the Rolling Stones filmed their movie that sat around for years, Rock And Roll Circus, John Lennon made a comment on film about how it felt good to not be in Paul's backup band, or something close to that. And then there was the letter signed by John, George, and Ringo, stating that Paul's new father in law, Lee Eastman, did NOT legally represent the Beatles.

The Beatles manager, Brian Epstein, was the glue that held that band together. And after Brian died, the Beatles went from being one group to four individuals who started to drift off in four different directions, and then kept on going until it was too late. Although I will NEVER EVER be a fan of Yoko Ono, I will always be a fan of telling the truth, no matter how unpleasant the truth might be.

The Beatles were broken up by the fact that The Beatles was a youth thing, started when they were kids, & they grew up & found themselves to be grown men, with families. The youthful spark had left them & they wanted to be normal family guys, not the four lads anymore. Plus, they didn't have Brian Epstein around anymore to shield them from the harsh reality of the business.

And not necessarily a "youth thing", as the two oldest, John andRingo, were barely 30 at the time. Whitefang

Consider that John had started what became The Beatles when he was about 14 & you can see that by 30 it was no longer a new thing, but something which had occupied over half his life. I think they all wanted off the merry go round.

Kinda odd that "debate" abt the breakup of that band's still going sometimes 1/2 C later...but, I guess, a mark of their emotional importance to many (that's separate from their musical vitality & validity).

The truth, as is so often the case is simpler than most wanna think.Lennon & McCartney were great partners for some time but as their success gave them each less reason to compromise & Macca's ambition/confidence grew at the same pace Lennon's declined (for a while, at least) they had less interest in working together.Eventually Lennon looked for any excuse to avoid continuing together & finally so did Paul.End of story.All the ideas abt outsiders wrecking the band are way down the list of real causes.Even within that band the departures of Starr & Harrison, at times, never really affected their future.It was J & P.

One thing The Beatles seemed magical at is encapsulating shared feelings. Telling our story to us.Here's a couple examples that, to me, tell their story.

I'm tired of hearing Yoko blamed. As with many things in life, she might have been a lightning rod for pre-existing issues within the group.

Anyway, we're better off that they broke up, since they all went on to do some of their greatest music, and most interesting stylistic changes, post-Beatles. Abbey Road's a great album, but does sort of indicate they might have already hit their artistic peak as a group.

totally agree.

_________________________
Innovation is never a single event. It is a long process of discovery, engineering, and transformation.My Soundcloud with many originals:https://soundcloud.com/user-898236994

It's true that some of their individual work was post-Beatling...but I'd say little of that was as innovative as their collaborations.While I disagree w/the premise that they got better as individuals (except Starr, who, by necessity, kinda blossomed) I think we can agree that they were generally wise not to try, as Lennon once put it, "reheating the souffle".We've but to look at the debacles of those bands that've behaved as if their only hope was to resurrect their early successes as, basically, cover bands of themselves.

I am 71 years old and was there in London in the '60's. Let me shed some light on this tale.

The myth of John and Yoko has been whitewashed many times and in particular by the image conscious Yoko Ono and her publicist.

John Lennon was a relatively happy and confident man during the first half of The Beatles. Unfortunately his love of recreational drug use eventually led him to a large number of episodes with L.S.D. As a consequence he became quite psychologically fragile with his self confidence diminished. Inside he craved a strong mother figure, an anchor to to guide him. Cynthia Lennon, his current wife at the time, was a somewhat traditional Englishwoman and unable to fill the role.

Yoko Ono was a highly confident and ambitious visual artist on the struggling avant-gaurd scene. She very much wanted success. She first had her sights on the bachelor Paul McCartney but that went nowhere. By luck she met Lennon. After that all it took was a drug fueled weekend of sex together and Lennon was devoted. Japanese sexual practices can be quite extreme, Lennon was quite overwhelmed, and it very much unlike what British girls such as Cynthia had exposed him to. It was if suddenly he had a new guru he could devote to. He had found the salvation he needed and became fiercely devoted to Ono.

Ono was a strong personality and a powerful mother figure. But unfortunately she often put her own self interests ahead of what was best for Lennon. That is human nature in many marriages. She realized there was no place for her in The Beatles. She inspired Lennon to make albums with her instead.

After all was done, I will never forgive her for telling John to get out of the car at the curb that tragic night, instead of letting the driver enter the private courtyard of The Dakota where fans were not allowed. She wanted John to sign autographs with the fans on the sidewalk, even though he was tired from a long studio session. She had been warned ten days earlier by her security consultant to be careful and not take any chances with the public, especially with her son. So why did she want him to mingle on the sidewalk? Their new album was almost ready to be released and Ono sang half the songs. She always wanted to drum up public interest when a new John and Yoko album was to be released and making contact with the fans was one little way...

At this point I wonder what amazing songs he would have created had he lived. Then I put it out of my mind.

I consider "Mind Games" to be Lennon's most innovative post-Beatles album, and one of the best examples in pop music of using a full string backing in a way that is neither cheesy nor overwhelms the song.

The album that followed was a disappointment for me, in spite of the Elton John collaboration, as it seemed to have a lot of filler, as well as a couple of songs that sounded overly derivative of songs on "Mind Games" and "Imagine".

There's some excellent songwriting on "Sometime in NYC", but I'm not one of those who think Elephant's Memory was the best backing band. They had their own schtick going and it was what it was, but the strongest songs on that album for me are the more intimate and naked ones like "John Sinclair", and "Luck of the Irish" (this was the song -- along with the gorgeous "Born in a Prison" -- that permanently erased my earlier prejudice against Yoko).

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy that band and what they did with Lennon (especially live), but there was no way it was ever going to be the highlight of his career, because they were just too loose and jam-oriented to capture the full magic of what Lennon was about.

ALL of each Beatles' post band solo efforts is a mixed bag. I apparently thought higher of RINGO's efforts than it seemed most others did,(at least among those in my "circle" ) and among that put out by John and Paul, well, whenever I'M asked, "Who do you think was BETTER post Beatles? John or Paul?"

I always answer;

"GEORGE".

My way of saying, "Don't bother me with such horseshit." as I think neither was essentially BETTER than the other, just vastly DIFFERENT. Now, whom I liked better, well, I'd say after all the numbers are in, it's pretty much "neck and neck".Whitefang

Edited by whitefang (09/07/1804:28 AM)

_________________________
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!

& Garden Party was 1 of JL's fave tunesGarden Party was abt a 1950s pop tunes concert that Rick Nelson (not Nielson!!!!) & others performed at & which, apparently, Lennon took as a personal advisory.tune in abt :50

You do know that she was actually a student of John Cage, not just John L, right ?

And member of the Fluxus group, well known (in avant garde circles, which is my personal milieu) artist collective in New York in the 60s, long before going to London & meeting Lennon.

And so was anybody else that wanted to be at that time, it was anything goes for that bohemian group... and I myself also knew John Cage and he didn't think much of her, she was a useful volunteer to lay upon his piano... honestly take look at her art... she was never been an artist with great talent. Her greatest achievement was marrying the Beatle...